Manifestation 3 – Manifestation 5
Those who remained steadfast on Islam During the Apostasy Part 8
September 7, 2023Manifestation 6 – Manifestation 8
September 15, 2023BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
Manifestation 3
Their Prohibition of Discharging Zakat to Needy Ahlus Sunnah as they are Disbelievers
It is possible to expose the effect of their concept of Takfir while discussing Zakat from two angles:
1. Highlighting a few examples of their Rancour for the Ahlus Sunnah
This rancour becomes manifest in two instances they adhere to religiously, dictated to them by their concept of Takfir and upon which consensus has been reached. The two instances are as follows:
Instance 1: Discharging Zakat is limited to needy Shia. Therefore, it is not permissible to give Zakat to the opposition, whether Ahlus Sunnah or other Muslims sects. They have reached consensus upon this. You will not find a single scholar opposing this.
Instance 2: When the opposition—from the remaining Muslims—gives Zakat to people of his creed, who are Muslims, and thereafter embraces Shi’ism Imamiyyah, it is compulsory for him to discharge it once more to needy Shia. What he discharged to needy Muslims will not be accepted from him. They have reached consensus upon this as well.
Study a few texts of their authorities who passed this verdict for their followers. They adhere to it religiously. Some have emphatically stated consensus on this issue.
1. ‘Ali ibn Babawayh states:
وإياك أن تعطي زكاة مالك غير أهل الولاية
Be careful not to give Zakat of your wealth to others besides adherents of Wilayah.[1]
2. Ibn Babawayh, titled al Saduq, asserts:
لا يجوز أن تعطي زكاة مالك غير أهل الولاية
It is not permissible to give your wealth’s Zakat to others, besides adherents of Wilayah.[2]
3. Muhaqqiq al Hilli affirms:
الأول الإيمان وهو معتبر إلا في المؤلفة فلا يعطى الكافر وعلى ذلك أهل العلم ولما روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله أنه قال لمعاذ أعلمهم أن في أموالهم صدقة تؤخذ من أغنيائهم فترد في فقرائهم وكذا لا يعطى غير الإمامي وإن اتصف الإسلام
Firstly: Iman. It is considered except in the case of the mu’allafah[3]; hence a disbeliever will not be given. The scholars are unanimous upon this. This is due to the report of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who told Muaz, “Inform them that there is charity in their wealth that should be taken from their rich and given to their poor.” Similarly, a non-Imami cannot be given although he be categorised as a Muslim.[4]
He says:
القسم الثاني في أوصاف المستحق الوصف الأول الإيمان فلا يعطى الكافر ولا معتقدا لغير الحق ولو أعطى مخالف زكاته لأهل نحلته ثم استبصر أعاد
The second section – with regards to the qualities of the eligible. The first quality is iman, hence neither will a disbeliever be given nor one who believes in other than the truth.[5] If the opposition gives his Zakat to someone of his creed and then embraces the truth [Shi’ism], he should discharge it again[6].[7]
He states:
وأما الأوصاف المعتبرة في الفقراء والمساكين فأربعة الإيمان فلا يعطى منهم كافر ولا مسلم غير محق ولو أعطى مخالف فريضة ثم استبصر أعاد
The qualities that are considered in the poor and needy are four. 1. Iman: Hence, a disbeliever will not be given, nor a Muslim who is not following the truth. If the opposition gives his Zakat to someone of his creed and then embraces the truth [Shi’ism], he should discharge it again.[8]
4. Al Shahid al Awwal [Shams al Din Muhammad al Makki al ‘Amili] states:
ويلحق بذلك مسائل يشترط الإيمان في الجميع إلا المؤلفة فلا يعطى الكافر ولا معتقد غير الحق من المسلمين ولو أعطى مخالف فريقه ثم استبصر أعاد
Added to this are verdicts wherein iman is a condition in all, besides the mu’allafah. Hence, a disbeliever will not be given nor a Muslim who believes in other than the truth. If the opposition gives to someone of his creed and then sees the truth [of Shi’ism], he should discharge it again.[9]
5. Ibn Fahd al Hilli says:
وأما الأوصاف المعتبرة في الفقراء والمساكين فأربعة الإيمان فلا يعطى منهم كافر ولا مسلم غير محق ولو أعطى مخالف فريضة ثم استبصر أعاد
The qualities considered in the destitute and needy are four: Iman. Hence, a disbeliever will not be given, nor a Muslim who believes in other than the truth. If he gives the opposition his Zakat then sees the truth [of Shi’ism], he should discharge it again.[10]
6. Ayatollah al ‘Uzma ‘Ali al Sistani highlights the qualities of the eligible:
يجوز للمالك دفع الزكاة إلى مستحقيها مع استجماع الشروط الآتية الأول الإيمان فلا يعطى الكافر وكذا المخالف منها
It is permissible for an owner to give Zakat to persons eligible to receive it who have the upcoming characteristics. Firstly, iman. Hence, a disbeliever will not be given, nor one of the opposition.[11]
He writes on issue 1145:
إذا أعطى المخالف زكاته أهل نحلته ثم رجع إلى مذهبنا أعادها وإن كان قد أعطاها المؤمن أجزأ
If the opposition gives his Zakat to one of his creed and then reverts to our creed, he should discharge it again. Had he given it to a believer (Shia), it would have sufficed.[12]
7. Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad Hassan al Najafi reports their consensus on the matter:
والوصف الأول الإيمان بالمعنى الأخص (فلا يعطي الكافر) بجميع أقسامه في غير التأليف وسبيل الله بلا خلاف معتد به بين المسلمين فضلا عن المؤمنين بل الإجماع بقسميه عليه بل المحكي منه متواتر بل يمكن دعوى كونه من ضروريات المذهب أو الدين (و) كذا (لا) يعطى عندنا (معتقدا لغير الحق) من سائر فرق المسلمين بلا خلاف أجده فيه بيننا بل الإجماع بقسميه عليه بل المحكي منه متواتر كالنصوص خصوصا في المخالفين
The first quality is Iman in its most distinct meaning. (Hence, it will not be given to a disbeliever) with all their types besides the mu’allafah and the path of Allah without any worthy dispute among the Muslims, leave alone the believers. Rather, both types of consensus are formed upon it. In fact, the reported is mutawatir. Moreover, it is possible to claim it being from the essentials of the creed and religion. Similarly, it will not be given, according to us, (to one who believes in other than the truth) from all the Muslim sects without any dispute I could find among us. Rather, both types of consensus are formed upon it. In fact, the reported is mutawatir like the nusus, especially concerning the opposition.[13]
8. Shia authority Rida al Hamdani reports their consensus and the abundance of narrations on the matter. He affirms:
والثاني في أوصاف المستحقين للزكاة وهو أمور الأول الإيمان يعني الإسلام مع الولاية للأئمة الاثني عشر عليهم السلام فلا يعطى الكافر بجميع أقسامه بل ولا معتقد لغير الحق من سائر فرق المسلمين بلا خلاف فيه على الظاهر بيننا والنصوص الدالة عليه فوق حد الإحصاء
Secondly, the qualities of the recipients of Zakat are a few. Firstly, iman, i.e., Islam with Wilayah for the Twelve Imams. Hence, all types of disbelievers will not be given nor will one who believes in other than the truth, including all the various Muslim sects without any dispute among us apparently. The nusus indicating this are more than can be enumerated.[14]
2. Their Explicit Texts stating the reason for preventing Zakat from the Poor Ahlus Sunnah
In this discussion, their rancour will become apparent in a more explicit and startling way than before. This is while quoting Shia authorities and specialists on the reason behind them prohibiting giving Zakat to the opposition. You will become aware of the texts of three Shia specialists[15] on the reason behind the prohibition. These authorities are:
1. Al Sharif al Murtada titled ‘Alam al Huda
He states:
وجوب دفع الزكاة إلى الإمامي ومما انفردت الإمامية القول بأن الزكاة لا تجزئ إلا إذا انصرفت إلى إمامي ولا تسقط عن الذمة بدفعها إلى مخالف والحجة في ذلك مضافا إلى الإجماع أن الدليل قد دل على أن خلاف الإمامية في أصولهم كفر وجار مجرى الردة ولا خلاف بين المسلمين في أن المرتد لا تخرج إليه الزكاة
The compulsion of giving Zakat to an Imami: One of the distinctive views of the Imamiyyah is that Zakat will not be fulfilled except if given to an Imami and it will not be waived from one’s responsibility by giving it to the opposition. The proof for this, added to consensus, is that evidence indicates that opposing the Imamiyyah in their principles is disbelief, and on equal footing as apostasy. There is no dispute between Muslims that Zakat will not be discharged to an apostate.[16]
He states:
المسألة الثامنة والعشرون اشتراط الولاية في مستحقي الزكاة ولا يجزئ إخراجها إلا إلى المقرين المعترفين لولاية أمير المؤمنين فإن أخرجت إلى غيرهم وجبت الإعادة والوجه في ذلك بعد الإجماع المتكرر ذكره أن الجاهل لولاية أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وإمامته مرتد عند أهل الإمامة ولا خلاف بين المسلمين في أن الزكاة لا تخرج إلى المرتدين ومن أخرجها إليهم وجبت عليه الإعادة وهذا فرع مبني على هذا الأصل
Issue 28: Stipulating Wilayah a condition in the recipients of Zakat: It is not correct to discharge it except to those who acknowledge and attest to the Wilayah of Amir al Mu’minin. If it was discharged to anyone else, it is compulsory to be discharged again. The reason for this, after consensus which has been mentioned multiple times, is that one ignorant of the Wilayah and Imamah of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam is an apostate according to the Imamiyyah. Moreover, there is no dispute among Muslims that Zakat cannot be discharged to the apostates. One who gives it to them should discharge it again. This is a subsidiary establishment based upon this principle.[17]
2. Muhaqqiq al Hilli
He states:
الأول الإيمان وهو معتبر إلا في المؤلفة فلا يعطى الكافر وعلى ذلك أهل العلم ولما روي عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله أنه قال لمعاذ أعلمهم أن في أموالهم صدقة تؤخذ من أغنيائهم فترد في فقرائهم وكذا لا يعطى غير الإمامي وإن اتصف الإسلام ونعني به كل مخالف في اعتقادهم الحق كالخوارج والمجسمة وغيرهم من الفرق الذين يخرجهم اعتقادهم عن الإيمان وخالف جميع الجمهور في ذلك واقتصروا على اسم الإسلام لنا أن الإيمان هو تصديق النبي صلى الله عليه وآله في كل ما جاء به والكفر جحود ذلك فمن ليس بمؤمن كافر وليس للكافر زكاة لما بيناه ولأن مخالف الحق معاد لله ورسوله فلا تجوز موادته والزكاة معونة ومودة وإرفاق فلا تصرف إلى معاد
Firstly: Iman. It is considered except in the case of the mu’allafah; hence a disbeliever will not be given. The scholars are unanimous upon this. This is due to the report from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who told Muaz, “Inform them that there is charity in their wealth that should be taken from their rich and given to their poor.” Similarly, a non-Imami cannot be given although he be categorised as a Muslim. We refer to every opposition in their opposition of the truth like the Khawarij, Mujassimah, and other sects whose belief takes them out of the fold of iman. All of the majority [Ahlus Sunnah and other Muslim sects] have opposed this and sufficed on the name of Islam.
Our evidence is that iman is believing in the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in everything he brought whereas disbelief is rejection of the same. Hence, one who is not a believer is a disbeliever. And a disbeliever does not receive Zakat due to what we mentioned. Moreover, the opposition of the truth is antagonistic to Allah and His Messenger. Showing affection to him is impermissible. Zakat is help, affection, and compassion. Therefore, it will not be discharged to an enemy.[18]
3. Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli:
He states:
ولا يكفي الإسلام بل لا بد من اعتبار الإيمان فلا يعطى غير الإمامي ذهب إليه علماؤنا أجمع خلافا للجمهور كافة واقتصروا على اسم الإسلام لنا أن الإمامة من أركان الدين وأصوله وقد علم ثبوتها من النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ضرورة فالجاحد بها لا يكون مصدقا للرسول عليه السلام في جميع ما جاء به فيكون كافرا فلا يستحق الزكاة ولأن الزكاة معونة وإرفاق فلا يعطى غير المؤمن لأنه محادد لله ولرسوله والمعونة والإرفاق مواده فلا يجوز فعلها مع غير المؤمن لقوله تعالى لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُوْنَ بِاللهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّوْنَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللهَ وَرَسُوْلَهُ
Islam is not sufficient. Rather, considering iman is essential. Therefore, a non-Imami will not be given. All of our scholars opined this, contrary to the majority who have sufficed on the name of Islam. Our proof is that Imamah is one of the fundamentals and essentials of din and its establishment is known essentially from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. One who rejects it is therefore not a believer in the Messenger ‘alayh al Salam in whatever he brought. He will thus be a disbeliever and will not be eligible to receive Zakat. Moreover, Zakat is help and compassion so it will not be given to a non-believer as he opposes Allah and His Messenger. Assistance and compassion is befriending him—which is not permissible to display to a non-believer due to Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement: You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger.[19]
He emphasises his statement stating:
وشرط علماؤنا أيضا الإيمان فلا يعطى غير المؤمن عندنا خلافا للجمهور فإنهم اقتصروا على الإسلام خاصة لأن مخالف الحق محادد لله ورسوله فلا تجوز مودته والزكاة معونة ومودة فلا تصرف إليه
Our scholars stipulate iman as well. A non-believer will thus not be given according to us—contrary to the majority who have sufficed specifically on Islam. This is because one opposed to the truth is opposing Allah and His Messenger, so befriending him is impermissible. Zakat is help and friendship, hence it will not be discharged to him.[20]
The Muslims should consider how the effects of their Takfir become apparent by them prohibiting Zakat from the needy of the Ahlus Sunnah, who are disbelievers in their sight.
Manifestation 4
Terming the Ahlus Sunnah as Enemies and Refusing to Associate with them as Brothers[21]
Shia scholars and authorities who explicitly mention this are:
1. Shia Muhaddith and Researcher Yusuf al Bahrani
He states:
فإن إثبات الأخوة بين المؤمن والمخالف له في دينه لا يكاد يدعيه من شم رائحة الإيمان ولا من أحاط خبرا بأخبار السادة الأعيان لاستفاضتها بوجوب معاداتهم والبراءة منهم
Indeed, the establishment of brotherhood between a believer and his opposition in din is never peddled by one who smelt the fragrance of iman nor one who comprehended the reports of the Sayeds, the notables [the Imams], due to their abundance necessitating hostility towards them and dissociating from them.[22]
2. Shia Jurist and Researcher ‘Ali al Tabataba’i
He states:
ودعوى الإيمان والأخوة للمخالف مما يقطع بفساده والنصوص المستفيضة بل المتواترة ظاهرة في رده
The claim of iman and brotherhood for the opposition is something emphatically corrupt. Abundant—in fact, mutawatir—religious texts are clear in rejecting it.[23]
3. Shia Jurist Muhammad Jawwad al ‘Amili
He states:
والمخالف ليس مؤمنا ولا أخا له
The opposition is neither a believer nor a brother to him.[24]
4. Shia ‘Allamah and Jurist al Naraqi
He states:
ودعوى الإيمان والأخوة للمخالف مما يقطع بفساده وتؤكده النصوص المتواترة الواردة عنهم في طعنهم ولعنهم وتكفيرهم
The claim of iman and brotherhood for the opposition is something emphatically corrupt and further emphasised by mutawatir texts reported from them [the Imams] criticising, cursing, and excommunicating them [the opposition].[25]
5. Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad Hassan al Najafi – Authority of the Creed in his era
Al Najafi has sternly denounced the indication of Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement:
وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوْا وَلَا يَغْتَبْ بَّعْضُكُمْ بَعْضًا أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَنْ يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيْهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوْهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ إِنَّ اللهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيْمٌ
And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it… But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.[26]
to mean prohibition of backbiting the Ahlus Sunnah, because backbiting is only impermissible between brothers (i.e. only among the Imamiyyah themselves) and the opposition is not an Imami’s brother. He declared this brotherhood farfetched and refuted it, as their mutawatir narrations obligate hating them and dissociating from them. He states:
وصدر الآية الذين آمنوا وآخرها التشبيه بأكل لحم الأخ بل في جامع المقاصد أن حد الغيبة على ما في الأخبار أن يقول في أخيه ما يكرهه لو سمعه مما فيه ومعلوم أن الله تعالى عقد الأخوة بين المؤمنين بقوله تعالى إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ إِخْوَةٌ دون غيرهم وكيف يتصور الأخوة بين المؤمن والمخالف بعد تواتر الروايات وتظافر الآيات في وجوب معاداتهم والبراءة منهم
The beginning of the verse is those who believe and the end is likening [backbiting] with eating the flesh of a brother. In fact, Jami’ al Maqasid mentions that the definition of backbiting as appears in the narrations is for someone to mention about his brother what the latter would dislike, due to its repulsiveness, had he heard it. It is known that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala formulated brotherhood between the believers with His statement: The believers are but brothers, not with others besides them. How can brotherhood between a believer and opposition be imagined after the tawatur of narrations and the abundance of verses commanding showing them enmity and dissociating from them?[27]
Let the intelligent Muslims of every sect ponder on just how they regard brotherhood between the Shia and other Muslims farfetched and totally unlikely, since mutawatir narrations obligate showing them hostility and dissociation.
6. Shia Sheikh al Ansari – Titled al Sheikh al A’zam
While discussing the very verse that prohibits backbiting mentioned above, he negates it indicating the prohibition of backbiting the rest of the Muslims. He affirms that it only forbids backbiting between brothers with the words, “flesh of his brother,” while the opposition—according to him—is not an Imami’s brother as their reports obligate dissociating from them and not taking them as brothers. He states:
مع أن التمثيل المذكور في الآية مختص بمن ثبت أخوته فلا يعم من وجب التبري عنه
Coupled with the comparison mentioned in the verse being peculiar with one whose brotherhood is founded; hence it will not include those from whom dissociation is imperative.[28]
He emphasised the opposition’s non-inclusion in this verse by emphatically mentioning that the non-honouring of the opposition and non-application of Islam’s rules upon them is essentially known in the Imamiyyah creed. He states:
وتوهم عموم الآية كبعض الروايات لمطلق المسلم ومدفوع بما علم بضرورة المذهب من عدم احترامهم وعدم جريان أحكام الإسلام عليهم
The possibility of the generality of the verse—like some narrations—including every Muslim is repelled with what is essentially known of the creed of their non-honour and the non-application of Islamic rules to them.[29]
7. Ayatollah al ‘Uzma and Academic Ringleader Abu al Qasim al Khu’i
While establishing the permissibility of backbiting the rest of the Muslims, he discusses the verse prohibiting backbiting Muslims as they are brothers, i.e., Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement:
وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوْا وَلَا يَغْتَبْ بَّعْضُكُمْ بَعْضًا أَيُحِبُّ أَحَدُكُمْ أَنْ يَأْكُلَ لَحْمَ أَخِيْهِ مَيْتًا فَكَرِهْتُمُوْهُ وَاتَّقُوا اللهَ إِنَّ اللهَ تَوَّابٌ رَّحِيْمٌ
And spy not on each other behind their backs. Would any of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, ye would abhor it… But fear Allah: For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.[30]
He clearly mentions its non-inclusion of [other] Muslims as they are not brothers to the Shia due to their beliefs. He states:
إن المستفاد من الآية والروايات هو تحريم غيبة الأخ المؤمن ومن البديهي أنه لا أخوة ولا عصمة بيننا وبين المخالفين وهذا هو المراد أيضا من مطلقات أخبار الغيبة
What is learnt from the verse and the narrations is the prohibition of backbiting a believing brother. It is obvious that there is no brotherhood or protection between us and the opposition. This is the very purport of the general narrations on backbiting.[31]
He rejects flatly and sternly this type of brotherhood with Muslims. In fact, he labels this rejection an obvious, established, accepted reality in Shi’ism.
8. Shia Imam and Leader Khomeini
While establishing the permissibility of backbiting the rest of the Muslims, he engages the narrations which forbid backbiting and deems their inclusion farfetched, especially those which mention the prohibition of a Muslim backbiting his brother Muslim, because a non-Shia is not his brother. He asserts:
وما اشتملت على الأخ لا تشملهم أيضا لعدم الأخوة بيننا وبينهم بعد وجوب البراءة عنهم وعن مذهبهم وعن أئمتهم كما تدل عليه الأخبار واقتضته أصول المذهب
Those [narrations] which include the brother do not include them [other Muslim sects] as well, due to the non-existence of brotherhood between us and them after the obligation of dissociating from them, their mazhab, and their Imams, as indicated by the narrations and demanded by the mazhab’s [Shi’ism] principles.[32]
He says:
فإنها في مقام تفسيرها اعتبرت الأخوة فيها فغيرنا ليسوا بإخواننا وإن كانوا مسلمين
When elucidating on it, I considered brotherhood therein. Those besides us are not our brothers even though they may be Muslims.[33]
Khomeini thus determines the Shia Iranian State’s ties with the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. The Muslims—especially their neighbouring states—should reflect and be watchful!
To be fair, however, we say that Khomeini is not the only individual to hold this view. This was not the product of his own ideologies. The man is only following those who have passed before him. He indicates to this himself saying: “as indicated by the narrations and demanded by the mazhab’s [Shi’ism] principles.”
9. Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sa’id al Hakim[34]
He acknowledged that it is not possible to include the Ahlus Sunnah in the territory of brotherhood with the Shia as they are from the territory of the enemy. They—in his belief—are only worthy of hatred and curse. He says:
ومن الظاهر أنه لا احترام ولا ولاية ولا حق لغير المؤمن بل هو في حيز الأعداء بل ما ورد من لعن المخالفين وسبهم والبراءة منهم يقتضي جواز غيبتهم بالأولوية العرفية
It is obvious that a non-believer enjoys no honour, friendship, or right. Rather, he is in the territory of the enemies. In fact, the reports encouraging cursing, swearing, and dissociating from the opposition demand the permissibility of backbiting them to a greater degree.[35]
Just look at how his dark Takfiri mindset dictated to him the negation of any honour or friendship for the Ahlus Sunnah, since they are in the territory of the enemy. Moreover, narrations command insulting them, cursing them, and dissociating from them.
After citing a few statements of their scholars to establish this manifestation of Takfir in relation to the opposition, a reminder is necessary that this should not be considered a specific jurisprudential deduction, exclusive to the one who stated it, and not the universal view of Shi’ism. These scholars only transmitted what is established or unequivocally authentic in Shi’ism. It is possible to ascertain this certainty—O beloved reader—through the collection of a few evidences. Some of them are:
- The abundant and mutawatir narrations to which al Najafi has indicated with his words: “after the tawatur of narrations and the abundance of verses commanding showing them enmity and dissociating from them.”
- The principles of Shi’ism demand this as Khomeini asserts, “as indicated by the narrations and demanded by the mazhab’s [Shi’ism] principles.”
- Its certainty is from the obvious undebatable realities as spelt out by al Khu’i, “It is obvious that there is no brotherhood or protection between us and the opposition.”
This means that the concept of Takfir coupled with all its effects and manifestations is demanded by mutawatir narrations. None will deny the Shia’s involvement and immersion in it except a deceitful imposter or ignoramus.
Manifestation 5
Permitting Cursing, Backbiting, and Swearing the Ahlus Sunnah
Shia authorities who affirm this are:
1. Shia Muhaddith and Researcher Yusuf al Bahrani
He states:
من أوضح الواضحات في جواز غيبة المخالفين طعن الأئمة عليه السلام بأنهم أولاد زنا فمن ذلك ما رواه الكافي ج ٨ ص ٢٨٥ عن أبي حمزه عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال قلت له إن بعض أصحابنا يفترون ويقذفون من خالفهم فقال الكف عنهم أجمل ثم قال والله يا أبا حمزه إن الناس كلهم أولاد بغايا ما خلا شيعتنا فإذا كان الأئمة عليهم السلام قد طعنوا فيهم بهذا الطعن واغتابوهم بهذه الغيبة التي لا أعظم منها في الدين بالنسبة إلى المؤمنين والمسلمين فكيف يتم ما ذكره من المنع من غيبتهم
One of the most evident evidences for the permissibility of backbiting the opposition is the Imams’ ‘alayhim al Salam insult of them being illegitimate children. One such report is narrated in al Kafi, vol. 8 pg. 285, from Abu Hamzah from Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam:
I told him, “Some of our friends slander and defame those who oppose them.”
He said, “Sparing them is best.” He added, “By Allah, O Abu Hamzah, all people are children of whores except our Shia.”
When the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam have insulted them and backbitten them in this manner—which is the gravest aspect in din relating to believers and Muslims—then how can the prohibition of backbiting them, he mentions, ever be established?[36]
2. Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad Hassan al Najafi—authority of the Creed in his era
He states:
لكن لا يخفى على الخبير الماهر الواقف على ما تظافرت به النصوص بل تواترت من لعنهم وسبهم وشتمهم وكفرهم
Cursing them, insulting them, swearing them and excommunicating them are, however, not hidden from the acquainted, expert, cognisant of the abundant, nay mutawatir, textual evidence.[37]
He affirms consensus upon its permissibility. Truly, it is from the essentials:
وعلى كل حال فالظاهر إلحاق المخالفين بالمشركين في ذلك لاتحاد الكفر الإسلامي والإيماني فيهم بل لعل هجاءهم على رءوس الأشهاد من أفضل عبادة العباد ما لم تمنع التقية وأولى من ذلك غيبتهم التي جرت سيرة الشيعة عليها في جميع الأعصار والأمصار علماؤهم وعوامهم حتى ملئوا القراطيس منها بل هي عندهم من أفضل الطاعات وأكمل القربات فلا غرابة في دعوى تحصيل الإجماع كما عن بعضهم بل يمكن دعوى كون ذلك من الضروريات فضلا عن القطعيات
Whatever the case, it is evident to join the opposition with the polytheists in this due to agreement in Islamic and imani disbelief. In fact, probably insulting them publicly is one of the most superior forms of worship, if Taqiyyah does not forbid. Better than this is backbiting them, the path the Shia—both the scholars and common folk—have treaded in all eras and cities and filled manuscripts with the same. It is, in their sight, one of the most superior acts of obedience and most complete deeds of proximity. There is no oddness in claiming the formulation of consensus as some have. In fact, it is possible to claim it being among the fundamentals, if not the essentials.[38]
3. Al Ansari (Titled al Sheikh al A’zam)
He states:
المسألة السابعة والعشرون هجاء المؤمن حرام بالأدلة الأربعة لأنه همز ولمز وأكل اللحم وتعيير وإذاعة سر وكل ذلك كبيرة موبقة واحترز بالمؤمن عن المخالف فإنه يجوز هجوه لعدم احترامه
Issue 27: Insulting a believer is forbidden through the four proofs because it is scorning, mocking, eating flesh, condemnation, and disclosing secrets—all of which are major sins and destructive. By mentioning ‘believer’, he avoided the opposition since insulting him is permissible owing to him having no honour.[39]
He clearly mentions that cursing the opposition is permissible, let alone backbiting him. He asserts:
ثم إن ظاهر الأخبار اختصاص حرمة الغيبة بالمؤمن فيجوز اغتياب المخالف كما يجوز لعنه
Furthermore, the apparent narrations forbid backbiting a believer in particular. Hence, backbiting the opposition is permissible just as cursing him is permissible.[40]
4. Ayatollah al ‘Uzma and Academic Ringleader Abu al Qasim al Khu’i
He states:
أنه ثبت في الروايات والأدعية والزيارات جواز لعن المخالفين ووجوب البراءة منهم وإكثار السب عليهم واتهامهم والوقيعة فيهم أي غيبتهم لأنهم من أهل البدع والريب
The permissibility of cursing the opposition and the necessity of dissociating from them, swearing them excessively, slandering them, and backbiting them are established in narrations, supplications, and ziyarat[41] as they are men of innovation and suspicion.[42]
He states:
قيام سيرة المستمرة بين عوام الشيعة وعلمائهم على غيبة المخالفين بل سبهم ولعنهم في جميع الأعصار والأمصار بل في الجواهر أن جواز ذلك من الضروريات
The existence of the continuous practice of the Shia—common folk and scholars—of backbiting the opposition, swearing them, and cursing them in all eras and cities. In fact, al Jawahir pens the permissibility of this to be among the fundamentals.[43]
5. Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Khomeini
He states:
فلا شبهة في عدم احترامهم بل هو من ضروري المذهب كما قال المحققون بل الناظر في الأخبار الكثيرة في الأبواب المتفرقة لا يرتاب في جواز هتكهم والوقيعة فيهم بل الأئمة المعصومون أكثروا في الطعن واللعن عليهم وذكر مساويهم
There is no doubt in not honouring them. Rather, it is from the essentials of the school as stated by the researchers. In fact, one who studies the abundant narrations across various chapters will not doubt the permissibility of disgracing them and backbiting them. In truth, the infallible Imams have constantly disparaged them, cursed them, and mentioned their evils.[44]
6. Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani al Shirazi
He declared the impermissibility of backbiting a Shia and its permissibility for all other Muslims as they are the enemy; it is necessary to dissociate from them and backbite them. This while answering a question directed at him, which reads:
سؤال ما حكم اغتياب الأصناف التالية الكافر المسلم والحربي المسلم غير الإمامي الطفل وهل هناك فرق بين الطفل المميز وغير المميز
والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته
جواب بسمه تعالى
المشهور بين الأصحاب والمستفاد من الأدلة اختصاص حرمة الغيبة بالأخ المؤمن ومن طبيعة الأخوة أن يكون بينهما تحابب فجعل الشارع المؤمن أخا للمؤمن مرجعه إلى جعله محبا وصديقا له فيه تتحقق فيمن لم يأمر الشارع بالاجتناب والتبري عنه بل واتخاذه عدوا فالأخوة منحصرة بالمسلم الإمامي فلا تحرم غيبة غيره وأما الطفل فإن كان غير مميز فلا كلام في عدم حرمة غيبته لعدم صدق الموضوع وإن كان مميزا ومؤمنا فالأظهر حرمة غيبته مع ملاحظة صدق الغيبة بما لها من الشرائط
Question: What is the ruling of backbiting the following categories:
-
- A disbeliever, who has surrendered and one fighting against the Muslims;
- A non-Imami Muslim;
- A child – is there a difference between a child who has discernment and one who does not?
Peace by upon you, the mercy of Allah, and His blessings.
Answer
In His name, the Lofty
What is commonly known among the scholars and learnt through the proofs is the impermissibility of backbiting being specific to a believing brother. From the nature of brotherhood is the existence of mutual love between them. The Legislator has made a believer a brother to another believer, which means making him his beloved and friend. This is established for those regarding whom the Legislator did not command abstention, dissociation, or taking as an enemy. Brotherhood is thus exclusive to an Imami Muslim, hence backbiting others is not forbidden.
Regarding a child who does not have discernment, there is no discussion on the permissibility of backbiting him due to the nonexistence of the correct application. If he has discernment and is a believer, then obviously backbiting him is impermissible, with considering the correctness of backbiting coupled with its conditions.[45]
NEXT⇒ Manifestation 6, 7, and 8
[1] Fiqh al Rida, pg. 199.
[2] Al Saduq: al Muqni’, pg. 165.
[3] Recent reverts to Islam, still weak in faith; they may be given Zakat so as to bring their hearts closer to Islam.
[4] Al Hilli: al Mu’tabar, vol. 2 pg. 579.
[5] The researcher of the book, Sadiq al Shirazi, says:
الحق هو الاعتقاد باثني عشر إماما فمن لم يعتقد بذلك كاملا فليس معتقدا للحق
The truth is believing in Twelve Imams. Whoever does not believe in this completely, does not believe in the truth.
[6] The researcher says:
يعني لو أعطى غير الشيعي زكاته لفقراء غير الشيعة وجب عليه إعادة الزكاة بعد ما صار شيعيا
If a non-Shia gives his Zakat to a destitute non-Shia, it is incumbent upon him to repeat his Zakat after he becomes a Shia.
[7] Shara’i’ al Islam, vol. 1 pg. 123.
[8] Al Mukhtasar al Nafi’, pg. 59.
[9] Al Bayan, pg. 196.
[10] Ibn Fahd al Hilli: al Muhadhdhab al Bari’, vol. 1 pg. 32, 533.
[11] ‘Ali al Sistani: Minhaj al Salihin, vol. 1 pg. 373.
[12] Ibid, vol. 1 pg. 373, Aspect: 1145.
[13] Al Najafi: Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 15 pg. 377.
[14] Misbah al Faqih, vol. 3 pg. 104.
[15] Whoever desires to realise the worth of these three who have penned the reason behind prohibiting Zakat from poor Ahlus Sunnah and the rest of the Muslims according to them should refer to my book: Mawqif al Shia al Imamiyyah. It contains details to which I would advise the specialist to refer.
[16] Al Murtada: al Intisar, pg. 217.
[17] Rasa’il al Murtada, vol. 1 pg. 225.
[18] Al Hilli: al Mu’tabar, vol. 2 pg. 579.
[19] Muntaha al Matlab, vol. 1 pg. 522.
[20] Tadhkirat al Fuqaha’, vol. 5 pg. 263.
[21] After reading this manifestation, you will be utterly amazed at the level of cheekiness, wickedness, and dishonest audacity with which Shia Ayatollah al ‘Uzma ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din—author of al Muraja’at—is characterised. You see him dramatising the Shia being deprived of the right to Muslim brotherhood, thereby exonerating the guilty and incriminating the innocent. He writes in his book Ajwibat Masa’il Jar Allah, pg. 49, “Until when will you target your brothers; we find in al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah the Shia being labelled as innovators and heretics … as if the Shia are not their brothers in din.” You will be more flabbergasted when you find scholars, not laymen, of the Ahlus Sunnah supporting his claim and devoting their day and night to calling towards unity and brotherhood with the Shia and dealing justly with them in their rights, including their religious rights!
[22] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 18 pg. 150.
[23] Riyad al Masa’il, vol. 8 pg. 68.
[24] Miftah al Karamah, vol. 12 pg. 213.
[25] Mustanad al Shia, vol. 14 pg. 163.
[26] Surah al Hujurat: 12.
[27] Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 22 pg. 63.
[28] Kitab al Manasik, vol. 1 pg. 319.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Surah al Hujurat: 12.
[31] Misbah al Faqahah, pg. 324.
[32] Al Makasib al Muharramah, vol. 1 pg. 250.
[33] Al Makasib al Muharramah, vol. 1 pg. 251.
[34] Currently residing in Najaf.
[35] Misbah al Minhaj, pg. 302.
[36] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 18 pg. 155.
[37] Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 22 pg. 62.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Kitab al Manasik, vol. 2 pg. 118.
[40] Kitab al Manasik, vol. 1 pg. 319.
[41] Ziyarat refers to the supplications and eulogies recited by the Shia during ‘Ashura’. [Translator’s note]
[42] Misbah al Faqahah, vol. 1 pg. 323.
[43] Misbah al Faqahah, vol. 1 pg. 324.
[44] Al Makasib al Muharramah, vol. 1 pg. 251.
[45] Study the stance of Shia Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani al Shirazi in Fatawa al ‘Aqa’idiyyah on the internet: http://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?t=1976.